Previous articles 1 & 2 have spelled out why college or graduate schools often do a seriously bad job handling investigations, hearings and decisions on disciplinary charges against students. They’ve detailed how students are often denied due process in many campus disciplinary hearings that, for example, forbid students from having legal representation during hearings, fail to spell out or properly investigate charges, or give school officials virtual carte blanche in presenting and deciding cases.

Any lawyer who has tried to help students in school disciplinary proceedings will have stories of almost unbelievably unfair procedures, unlike those found in any hearings elsewhere, and painfully amateurish or arbitrary decision making.

For example, I once represented a client at a school disciplinary hearing in which the top campus security official offered testimony that two other students had reported my client had used drugs during the current semester. The “testimony” contained no details whatsoever on where or when the alleged drug use took place. The “informants” also chose to remain anonymous, and school officials bringing the case made no attempt to reveal the informants’ identity, much less their reliability or potential animus towards the accused. It probably goes without saying there was no opportunity to confront or cross-examine the nameless accusers.

Adding to the proceeding’s absurdity: the charges the student faced had nothing to do with his use or possession of drugs. In any objective criminal court, the “evidence” would have been excluded as hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial. Similarly, the accused would have been accorded the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine accusers — but not at this institution of higher learning.

As recognition mounts of the serious flaws in college disciplinary hearings, a variety of proposals have been offered to mend it. Some of these suggestions would in fact make things far worse, not better. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which is supposed to protect students’ civil rights on campus, in fact has taken the lead in suggesting new ways schools should trample on the rights of students facing school disciplinary hearings.

For example, when post-secondary students face school disciplinary hearings on charges of sexual misconduct (the term encompasses a wide range of accusations, ranging from unwelcome advances up to assaults), OCR has urged schools not to accord an accused the presumption of innocence, which is automatic in any real court in the land.

Instead, OCR argues for a “preponderance of the evidence” standard — meaning that whoever is deciding the case (usually a group of academics, school staffers or students, all likely to have little or no appreciation of the civil and legal rights issues) need only view the case against an accused as slightly stronger than the case presented by the defense.

When Harvard University set rules to be used university-wide in disciplinary hearings on complaints of sexual misconduct, a good part of its law faculty (whose views had not been sought) joined a letter slamming the procedures, closely based on OCR’s recommendations, for lacking “the most basic elements of fairness and due process” and being “overwhelmingly stacked against the accused.” Why would a college pay attention to OCR’s “guidance”? Perhaps because the agency has the authority to block all federal funds to schools it sees as failing to safeguard students’ rights — as measured by its unfair interpretations.

That’s not the end of dubious ideas bubbling out of the federal government. A White House federal task force working on campus sexual assaults touted this brainstorm well over a year ago: turning nearly all phases of such cases to a “single investigator,” who would investigate the case; interview the accuser, the accused and any witnesses; and then decide the case or advise a school tribunal on how to resolve it.

Not surprisingly, a non-profit group dedicated to protecting student rights in school disciplinary hearings lambasted this proposal as empowering one likely ill-trained or untrained student or staffer to serve as an all-in-one “detective, prosecutor and judge.” A far better suggestion would be, in appropriate cases, for campus officials to bring in an independent investigator, one trained and experienced in the ways student rights would be protected in the world outside the campus gates.

The North Carolina legislature recently adopted a first-in-the-nation law, which deserves wider consideration: it guarantees public college and university students the right to hire and be accompanied by an advocate, who could “fully participate” in campus disciplinary hearings.

The new law isn’t perfect: it exempts proceedings run solely by students, and doesn’t apply to the state’s private-school students. But getting similar provisions adopted by other states, and having OCR change direction to promote, rather than campaign against, the rights of students accused in school disciplinary proceedings, would be significant improvements.

The client was charged with driving while impaired by drugs. We showed the DA’s office the client suffered from hyperkalemia, a medical condition caused by an elevated level of potassium which can cause fatigue, lethargy and confusion. All charges were dismissed.

Client was charged with Robbery in the Second Degree. He was with a friend who robbed a person sitting in a parked car. We were able to show the DA’s office that our client had no knowledge of his friends intent. We were able to get the felony reduced to a Disorderly Conduct which is a non criminal offense.

Client was charged with Criminal Posession of a Weapon and was facing a minimum of three and one half years. During an evidentiary hearing we were able to show that the police confuted an illegal search the gun was suppressed and the charge was dismissed.

Client was charged with Grand Larceny. It was her 7th arrest during the previous 10 years. The DA’s office was not offering a reduced charge and was requesting jail time. We got the client involved in a work and parenting program and were able to secure a plea to a misdemeanor without jail or probation.

Client was charged with Unlawful Surveilence. After his plea of guilty it was a discretionary decision to be made by the court as to weather he had to register as a sex offender. Through our efforts we were able to have him sentenced without having to register.

Client Testimonials

"I can’t thank Scott enough for helping me. I had never been arrested before and found myself in the middle of a nightmare. I was arrested for and charged with criminal Mischief in the Third degree which is a class E Felony. Scott was first able to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor. He was then able to see that the case was completely dismissed."

T.T.Charged with Felony Assault and Criminal Mischief in Queens County

"Scott Limmer is a very knowledgeable Nassau County NY lawyer and has been extremely helpful to me and my family over 8 months of court. He knows how to handle the ADA and his tenacity has been untiring. The quality of his work is in the ending of the case, with justice being served and correct. We are very fortunate and thankful to have found Scott Limmer to represent us. Thank you Scott and God Bless"

F.L.Arrested for Robbery in the Second Degree in Nassau County

"Scott Limmer is a man of his word and an attorney with integrity above reproach. When one needs a criminal attorney it is usually the most harrowing time of your life. Scott Limmer makes a horrible situation easier. He speaks in layman’s terms and explains your situation every step of the way. He keeps the costs to a minimum and delivers beyond expectations. I would recommend choosing Scott Limmer as your attorney hands down."

A.O.Arrested for Suffolk County Felony

"I was arrested for a felony Mr. Limmer would not agree to any of the offered plea bargains. He was able to get the case dismissed. I can’t thank him enough for his hard work and professionalism."

D.D.Arrested for Falsifying Business Record in the First Degree in Nassau

"Scott helped me thru a very difficult 20 months of navigating thru the Nassau county legal system. His advice was on the money from the start to the end. Amicable, tenacious and knowledgeable, just some of the words to describe him…In the end I credit his guidance in helping me get the just court decision…But then again he knew the outcome….thanks Scott…we remain in touch to this day and my case was over almost two years ago…"

T.C.Arrested for Assault in the Third Degree in Nassau County

"Helped me thoroughly with all my traffic dealings. He is my go to guy for my company. Scott is the best."